T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e R ona l d M . W hy t e , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. HE R MAN C AN DL E R GR I GS B Y, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50094 D . C . N o. 2: 08 -c r- 01 33 2-P S G -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia P hi l i p S . G ut i e rr e z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t5, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: W A R D L A W and B E R Z O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W H Y T E , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** H e rm a n G r ig s b y ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n o f o n e c o u n t o f

a tte m p te d tr a v e l in f or e i gn c om m e r c e w i th i nt e ntt o e nga ge i n i l l i c i ts e xua l c onduc t , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2423, a nd one c ountof pos s e s s i on of

c hi l d pornogr aphy i n vi ol a t i on of 18 

# FI LED JAN 09 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

U . S . C . § 2252( A ) ( a ) ( 5) ( B ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291, a n d w e a f

f i rm. 1. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrby i nc r e a s i ng G r i gs by ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l by f ourl e ve l s pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) ba s e d on af i ndi ng tha tG r i gs by pos s e s s e d a n i m a ge tha tde pi c t e d a n a dul tm a l e e nga ge d i n a na l pe ne tr a t i on w i th a m in o rm a le . A s in g le im a g e is s u f f ic ie n t to tr ig g e rth e § 2 G 2 .2 ( b ) ( 4 ) e n h a n c e m e n t. Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . H

o lt , 51 0 F . 3d 10 07 , 10 11 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). In the di stri ct court , G ri gsby “ agre e[ d] ” thatthe ph ot og raph qu al i fi ed for a n enh ance m entun der U ni ted Stat es v. R earden , 349 F . 3d 608, 615 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , a nd de c l i ne d the c o u rt’s o f

f e rto c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g o n th e is s u e . H e n o w s e e k s to di s t i ngui s h R e arde n on l y on the grou nd thathe l ac ked the m ent al st at e nec es sary f o rim p o s itio n o f

th e e n h a n c e m e n t. B u t th is a r g u m e n t ig n o r e s ap p lic a tio n n o te 2 to U . S . S . G . § 2 G 2 . 2 , w h i ch m ak es cl ear th atth e p ro v i si o n “ ap p l i es i f th e o ffen se i nvol ve d m a t e r i a l tha tportr a y s s a di s t i c orm a s oc hi s t i c c onduc torothe rde pi c t i ons o f v i o l en ce, reg ard l ess o f w h eth er th e d efen d an tsp eci fi cal l y i n t en d ed t o p o ssess, a c c e s s w ith in te n t to v ie w , r e c e iv e , o rd is tr ib u te s u c h m a te r ia ls .” 2 . G r ig s b y w a iv e d h is c h a lle n g e to th e tw o - le v e l in c r e a s e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2G 2. 2(b)(6) for off

ense s i nv ol vi ng “ use of acom pu t eror an i nt er ac t i ve com pu t er s e rvi c e ” by s t i pul a t i ng t o thi s e nha nc e m e nti n hi s pl e aa gr e e m e nt . M or e ove r , the3

prov i si on appl i es because G ri gsby used W ebT V , w hi ch i s “ a s ervi ce or sy st em that pr ovi de s a c c e s s t o the I nt e rne t . ” 47 U . S . C . § 230( f ) ( 2) ; U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2, app. n. 1. 3 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t p la in ly e rrb y f a ilin g to s p e c if

y w h e th e rit e m pl oy e d apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e orac l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng s t a nda r d of pr oof i n appl y i ng the § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) a nd § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 6) e nha nc e m e nt s be c aus e the gove rnm e ntm a de the r e qui r e d f a c tua l s how i ng unde re i the rs t a nda r d. T hus G ri g sb y h as fai l ed t o d em o n strat e th atan y erro r “ affected [h i s] su b st an t i al ri g h t s” by “ af fe ct [i ng ] the ou t com e of the di stri ctcourtproceedi ng s. ” P ucke t t v. U ni ted Stat es , 129 S . C t . 1423, 1429 ( 2009) ( quot i ng U ni te d State s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U . S. 72 5, 73 4 (19 93 )) . 4. T he di s tr i c tc ourtc orr e c t l y appl i e d the m ul t i - c ounte nha nc e m e ntpur s ua nt t o U . S . S . G . § 3D . G r i gs by ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe c ourti nc orr e c t l y c ons i de r e d the p o ssessi o n co u n tt o b e m o re “ seri o u s” th an th e att em p t ed trav el co u n tread s a m or a l c onnot a t i on i nt o thi s s e c t i on of the G ui de l i ne s , w he n the “ s e r i ous ” f i ndi ng r e f e r s to th e r e la tiv e o f

f e n s e le v e l o f

d if f e r e n t g r o u p s o f

c o u n ts . See U .S .S .G . § 3D 1. 4(a) -( c) . 5. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by choo si ng no tt o reduce G r i gs by ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory s c or e unde rU . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3( b) ( 1) . W hi l e the pr ovi s i on gi ve s di s tr i c tc ourt s the di s c r e t i on t o de pa rtdow nw a r d, doi ng s o i s not4

m a nda t ory , a nd gi ve n tha tG r i gs by ’ s a rr e s tf ordr i vi ng unde rthe i nf l ue nc e c a m e 21 da y s be f or e hi s a rr e s tf

orthe c urr e ntof

f e ns e s a nd tha thi s bl ood a l c ohol concentra t i on w as 0. 25 , the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on w as no tun re as on abl e. 6 . A lth o u g h G r ig s b y r a is e d p o lic y a r g u m e n ts ab o u t f la w s in th e c h ild pornogr aphy s e c t i on of

the G ui de l i ne s be f

or e hi s s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, he di d not o b je c t a t s e n te n c in g to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f a ilu r e to a d d r e s s th e s e a r g u m e n ts . T h e r e f o r e w e r e v ie w th is c la im f o rp la in e rr o r . Se e U

ni te d State s v . V

ale nc i aB ar r agan , 608 F . 3d 1103, 1108 n. 3 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . G r i gs by c ont e nds tha tthe G u id e lin e s illo g ic a lly r e s u lt in h a r s h e rp u n is h m e n t f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c h ild po rnog raph y than for cri m es i nv ol vi ng ac tual cont ac tw i th m i no rs . T he di stri ct co u rt d idn o t errin re

jectin g th is ar g u m en t. R ath er , i t m ad e c learth at G rig sb y’s a tte m p te d f

o r e ig n tr a v e l f

o rth e p u rp o s e s o f

a n illic it s e x u a l e n c o u n te rw ith ac h ild d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h is c r im e w a s m o r e d a n g e r o u s th a n p o s s e s s io n o f p o rn o g r ap h y . T he di s tr i c tc ourta c know l e dge d tha ti t s s e nt e nc e w a s “ l e ngthy ” a nd “ ha r s h, ” a nd in d ee d itim p o se d a 1 2 1 -m o n th se n ten ce th at ex ce ed ed th e g o v er n m en t’ s re com m ended 9 7-m on th sent ence . 7. T he w i thi n- G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc ourti s not s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) . T h e r e a s o n ab le n e s s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s e n te n c e is5

adequat el y s up po rt ed by G ri gsby’ s a tt em ptt o eng age i n an actual cont ac tcr i m e, h i s ad m i tt ed p ed o p h i l i a, an d d ecad es o f co l l ect i n g ch i l d p o rn o g rap h y. 8. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrby r e qui r i ng tha tG r i gs by s ubm i tt o drug te s tin g a s ac o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( d ) . T h is c ondi t i on i s pe rm i s s i bl e i n l i ghtof the e xt e ns i ve e vi de nc e of G r i gs by ’ s c urr e nt a l c ohol a nd pa s tdrug abus e , a nd the c onne c t i on be tw e e n hi s a l c ohol i s m a nd the o f f e n s e s f o rw h ic h h e w a s c o n v ic te d . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( d ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. Sa les , 476 F . 3d 732, 735- 36 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . G r i gs by ’ s r e l i a nc e on U ni ted Stat es v. B e tts , 511 F . 3d 872 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , i s m i s pl a c e d. T he r e w e va c a t e d ano- a l c ohol c ondi t i on w he r e the r e w a s no e vi de nc e of a ny ki nd of

s ubs t a nc e abus e , a nd d is tin g u is h e d c a s e s s u c h a s th is o n e w h e r e th e r e is “s o m e e v id e n c e o f p r io ra lc o h o l, drug , or pres cr i pt i on m edi ci ne abuse. ” Id . a t879. 9. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by i m pos i ng ac ondi t i on of s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( d ) r e q u ir in g th a t G r ig s b y s u b m it t o searc hes and se i zure s of c om pu t er s and re l at ed devi ce s. “ S ubj ec t i ng com pu t er s a n d o th e rd e v ic e s ab le to a c c e s s th e I n te rn e t to m o n ito r in g , s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e is cr i t i ca l t o p re vent i ng [G ri gsby] fr om vi ew i ng or ob t ai ni ng chi l d p orno graphy. ” U n i ted S ta tes v. G o dda rd , 537 F . 3d 1087, 1090 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . T hi s c ondi t i on of supervi se d rel ea se i s s uffi ci ent l y narrow because i tappl i es on l y t o tho se devi ce s6

c o n n e c te d to th e I n te rn e t. Se e U ni te d State s v . Q ui nz on , 643 F . 3d 1266, 1272- 74 (9th C i r. 20 11 ) ( anal yz i ng an i dent i ca l l y- w orded con di t i on of supervi se d rel ea se ). 10. B e c aus e G r i gs by f

a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the 2, 000 f e e tr e s i de nc y c ondi t i on, w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o r . U

n ite d S ta te s v . D a n ie ls , 54 1 F . 3d 91 5, 92 8 (9th C i r. 2008) . T hough the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o a rt i c ul a t e the r e a s on f ori m pos i ng the 2, 000 f e e tr e s tr i c t i on, s om e f

orm of r e s i de nc y r e s tr i c t i on w a s appr opr i a t e , gi ve n the c r i m e s t o w hi c h he pl e a de d gui l ty , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notpl a i nl y e rrby im p o s in g th e o n e r e c o m m e n d e d b y th e P r o b a tio n O f f ic e . C f . U ni ted Stat es v. R udd , – F . 3d –, 2011 W L 5865897 ( 9th C i r . N ov. 23, 2011) ( f i ndi ng a n abus e of di s c r e t i on i n the i m pos i t i on of 2, 000 f e e tr e s tr i c t i on ove robj e c t i on w i thout art i cul at i ng a s uffi ci entbasi s f or the di st ance chosen). AF F I RME D.